For any policy wonks out there, the Washington State Office of Financial Management has released a report discussing a possible single point of contact system. They were required to do this under the statute I cited earlier in this thread.
I've skimmed through it.
Here are some highlights:
After consulting with agencies and businesses involved in the firearm background check process, OFM concludes that creating a single point-of contact system is both feasible and an advisable course of action to pursue.
(page 1).
Estimated cost to set up: $3.4 mill. Annual cost: $10.2 mill. The report suggests an $18.63 per transfer fee to offset annual costs.
This portion on the Health Care Authority's involvement was interesting:
HCA performs a name-based check for records of involuntary holds or commitments to mental health services that would be prohibitors in a firearm background check. These same involuntary holds and commitments are required submissions to the NICS Indices by staff at AOC. (the Court system).
During the course of the Feasibility Study, OFM attempted to determine areas of redundancy where the firearm background check process could be reduced or simplified. One such area concerns HCA, which is mandatory to reference during state-level background checks for pistols and SARs. HCA performs a name-based check for records of involuntary holds or commitments to mental health services that would be prohibitors in a firearm background check. These same involuntary holds and commitments are required submissions to the NICS Indices by staff at AOC. The NICS itself is also mandatory to reference in the course of a firearm background check. In this sense, checking both HCA and the NICS provides redundant information on mental health prohibitors and adds unnecessary steps to the firearm background check.
. . .
The information provided by HCA suggests that a notable percentage of mental health records are not reaching the NICS Indices and therefore are unavailable to the FBI during these checks. Additionally, this discrepancy necessitates including HCA in the state-level check where it might otherwise be redundant.
(page 21).
The question I have is why isn't NICS getting those records? Getting that corrected seems like the solution, rather than have the HCA do redundant work and have to stay in the loop (and suck up more tax dollars in the process). If someone has been involuntarily committed, that should be in NICS, so that person doesn't go to some other state and cause a problem.
The report is available for download here:
https://ofm.wa.gov/about/publications-and-reports
I think a single point of contact system is okay, but the cynic/realistic in me sees that this will eventually result not in an effort to streamline the process, but to add additional requirements and steps. "Let's apply this to long guns, too, and maybe we should have a firearms endorsement card." Wait, like my CPL isn't good enough? It sure used to be....